Political explainer pic
Align
Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Please chip in and tell me how accurate it is</div>I make it sound like I made it, but not so.
From <a href="http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/" target="_blank">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/</a> we get:
<img src="http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9920/politics.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
From <a href="http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/" target="_blank">http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/</a> we get:
<img src="http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/9920/politics.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Comments
Not as pretty, but I think more accurate. I'm socially a libertarian, but I favor economic regulation so you'd find me at ~-5,-5 (near Gandhi) politically.
<img src="http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /><img src="http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/axeswithnames.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
Assuming they're authoritarian yes.
I'm talking about passion for the topic. Authoritarianism is just a modifier describing how someone acts, not how they decide when to act. You could have Authoritarian state of moderates. Probably it wouldn't get anywhere, though. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to make politics fit into neat little boxes on a neat little graph. I don't know if it can be done.
There aren't many "attributes" of a political body that are 1 to 1 tradeoff spaces, where you increase one while decreasing the other. Instead, most of our political concepts (fascism, nationalism, dictatorships, despotism, democracy, republic, militants, pacifists, etc) just describe particular behavior and aren't mutually exclusive of each other.
Some things you can draw conclusions on. Like say your general level of apathy. Others might not agree with this, but I think it would be pretty hard to stay moderate about a topic if you're generally apathetic about it. Far left and right of the issue, you're much less apathetic, in fact you're probably fanatical about it.
There aren't many "attributes" of a political body that are 1 to 1 tradeoff spaces, where you increase one while decreasing the other. Instead, most of our political concepts (fascism, nationalism, dictatorships, despotism, democracy, republic, militants, pacifists, etc) just describe particular behavior and aren't mutually exclusive of each other.
Some things you can draw conclusions on. Like say your general level of apathy. Others might not agree with this, but I think it would be pretty hard to stay moderate about a topic if you're generally apathetic about it. Far left and right of the issue, you're much less apathetic, in fact you're probably fanatical about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looking at things on a
More Freedom <---------> More Restrictions
axis makes sense to me.
So does putting economic policy and social policy on different axises.
I also don't think that restricting economic freedoms is generally comparable to restricting social freedoms. For example, I wouldn't consider a gov't with harsh tariffs(like Japan) to be as oppressive as a gov't that bans homosexuality, like many African nations, even if both restrictions are rather "far left" or "far right" respectively.
2 dimensional descriptors only assume there are two issues subject to debate.
I don't know how completely idiotic someone must be to only have an opinion on one or two issues, but these methods of describing one's opinions have got to go the way of T-Rex and flame-accelerant pajamas.
They only make any sense when a single belief determines the whole of someone's political philosophy. And these should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
2 dimensional descriptors only assume there are two issues subject to debate.
I don't know how completely idiotic someone must be to only have an opinion on one or two issues, but these methods of describing one's opinions have got to go the way of T-Rex and flame-accelerant pajamas.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suggest a better way then. I believe that is part of the topic here.
WIN!
I don't consider throwing up your hands and saying "political positions are uncategorizable" a "win", but you certainly can't dislodge a fundamental belief such as that without serious changes in philosophy.
Unfortunately humans don't work that way. We automatically make simplifying assumptions and condense information by organizing it somehow. There's an infinite spectrum of different visible colors that we condense using roygbv, for example. It's more than our inability to distinguish colors at a certain level; it has to do with what's important to use in our daily lives. There's no reason to have a color between red and orange if you can operate without one. This can be extended to a case where you remember 16 colors, or 32 colors, etc. I don't know anyone who can name every color in a 32,000 color palette, though, even if they could distinguish between them.
For most people, a political spectrum of democrat and republican, with maybe some libertarian and independent spice, is just fine. They have an answer for all their issues using just those two classes. Obviously, they're not as interested in politics as someone like you. Don't confuse the lack of interest or the unwillingness to change with some kind of grotesque inferiority.
Geez, according to that, i AM Gandhi, I'm dead on with him. Interesting test.
Lol, well politically anyway. That's not really same as *being* Gandhi. ;-)
There aren't many "attributes" of a political body that are 1 to 1 tradeoff spaces, where you increase one while decreasing the other. Instead, most of our political concepts (fascism, nationalism, dictatorships, despotism, democracy, republic, militants, pacifists, etc) just describe particular behavior and aren't mutually exclusive of each other.
Some things you can draw conclusions on. Like say your general level of apathy. Others might not agree with this, but I think it would be pretty hard to stay moderate about a topic if you're generally apathetic about it. Far left and right of the issue, you're much less apathetic, in fact you're probably fanatical about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.. it's a ridiculous test, and the wording of some of the questions was so leading that it gave me pause.
<a href="http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq" target="_blank">http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq</a> the answers of 10 - 15 shows that the authors of this test are clowns.
Here is a test that is almost exactly like it (perhaps even the same people), but it has an ideological chart view at the end that makes it seem much better. Though i've noted that some of the questions were exactly the same.
this <a href="http://www.okcupid.com/politics" target="_blank">http://www.okcupid.com/politics</a>
<a href="http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=Libertarian&score=3438" target="_blank">http://www.okcupid.com/politics?describe=L...&score=3438</a> was my result for this test
yeah, when I read libertarian on the chart, my first thought was.. that's ridiculous..
still, progressive itself doesn't represent left soley. There are progressive conservatives, they are Agents, brokers, doctors, inspectors, plumbers, and other such professionals. These are the sort of people who are or who support professional services as the standard or norm, thus support legislation that requires society to use these services. Libertarians are against such legislation, as it removes a person's liberty to perform such services themselves, or choose none certified person to perform them. It's the difference between taking a risk and removing a liberty that offers a risk. It's also important to note that the risk could be a risk to society as much as the individual, or individuals, involved.
Can you elaborate on that? The answers seem reasonable to me.